nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space
From: Steve Bertrand <steve () ibctech ca>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:29:28 -0500
On 2010.03.04 22:26, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.04 16:53, William Herrin wrote:On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Stan Barber <sob () academ com> wrote:On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:30 PM, William Herrin wrote: Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?I would suggest that the ratio of folks that will multihome under IPv6 versus those that won't will get smaller. I base that on an assumption that NAT (as we know it today) will be less prevalent as IPv6 usage grows.Alrighty then...heh. Stan, you've got things backwards, no matter which direction you are looking at things from. I'm thinking that you may have written the sentence incorrectly. It's unfortunate, but it is reality. Have you reviewed your RIR policy lately? v6 will be flying out the window soon, and your local RIR may be assigning PI space like candy. Welcome IPv6.
fwiw, it didn't appear clear to me that my own comments reflected my feelings that the migration was a good thing ;) STeve
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Mark Newton (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space Marco Hogewoning (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 05)